The accurate prediction of sweat rate from energy expenditure and air temperature: a proof-of-concept study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This proof-of-concept study used a web application to predict runner sweat losses using only energy expenditure and air temperature. A field study (FS) of n = 37 runners was completed with n = 40 sweat loss observations measured over 1 h (sweat rate, SR). Predictions were also compared with 10 open literature (OL) studies in which individual runner SR was reported (n = 82; 109 observations). Three prediction accuracy metrics were used: for FS, the mean absolute error (MAE) and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) were calculated to include a 95% confidence interval [CI]; for OL, the percentage concordance (PC) was examined against calculation of accumulated under- and over-drinking potential. The MAE for FS runners was 0.141 kg [0.105, 0.177], which was less than estimated scale weighing error on 85% of occasions. The CCC was 0.88 [0.82, 0.93]. The PC for OL was 96% for avoidance of both under- and over-drinking and 93% overall. All accuracy metrics and their CIs were below acceptable error tolerance. Input errors of ±10% and ±1 °C for energy expenditure and air temperature dropped the PC to between 84% and 90%. This study demonstrates the feasibility of accurately predicting SR from energy expenditure and air temperature alone. Novelty Results demonstrate that accurate runner SR prediction is possible with knowledge of only energy expenditure and air temperature. SR prediction error was smaller than scale weighing error in 85% of observations. Accurate runner SR prediction could help mitigate the common risks of over- and under-drinking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".